After, they will do stuff that the "AI" will notice.
Goes for any physical sport that needs human judges instead of something measurable, like running speed, for their competitions.
Pretty sure if you do competitional martial arts you train a subset of techniques that will be very visible and score you points as well.
This would result in identical performances resulting in different scores with the difference being artificially arbitrary.
Regular people exercising should be inspired and uplifted by the elites, but it doesn't work when they're playing a different game entirely at the top.
Maybe that's most people's careers.
Humans have improved at Go since AIs became best in the world
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2364137-humans-have-imp...
Having one and only one judging standard is a good thing.
What will inevitably happen is a guy will come to the competition with a weird pattern on his t-shirt and get a perfect score without preforming any of the exercise.
Basically catchers will try to catch a pitch using a motion that slightly tricks the umpires eyes into calling a marginal ball a strike.
It does have a statistically significant effect and since it has become widespread catchers are judged on how good they are at pitch framing since that is a small but significant part of the value to help the team win.
That whole concept goes out the window if MLB ever changes to just using cameras to call balls and strikes!
The problem comes when one (or multiple) measure(s) are an approximation of some ideal measure for the target. For example the famous example [1] of the measuring rat tails to determine killed rats (target). The faulty assumption here was that the only way to hand in a rat's tail is by killing them.
I get your point but with this case the measure is the target, so at no point does the "measurement become the target", it's aligned from the start. But then again, this is only true if your measure is of people performing the task you actually care about. If you want to know the fastest person and you measure over 100m you may end up with Bolt, which is great if you need "the fastest over 100m in a sprinting setup" but not if you need the fastest over a full marathon.
In general, it's an extremely good first approximation - many measures result in poor targets, and care needs to be taken when turning a measure into a target. Even then it usually becomes a worse measure.
> The faulty assumption here was that the only way to hand in a rat's tail is by killing them.
More than that, it's an assumption that an increase in rat tails equals a decrease in live rats. Even if you kill a rat to get a rat tail, that doesn't necessarily hold true. It rewards those that breed 5 rats, release 4 and hand in the tail of 1. Killed rats would have still been a bad target. The true target was fewer live rats. Dead rats can be a reasonable measure, but as a target it has very risky outcomes.
we have extra rules on top: No doping, separation of genders,...
I am thinking of how runners all lean forward just before the finish line. This must slow their overall speed but gets a part of their body to the measurement datum slightly quicker.
I admit its not a huge deviation between the measurement and the target but still it is an attempt to affect the measurement by means other than running fastest
AI might be able to radically change sports like fencing and HEMA. I could see the development of match judging AIs trained by experts. Anyone who has fenced knows the frustration of the fallibility of human judges.
It's also possible that AI judging could benefit martial arts, bringing them closer to their practical roots, by counteracting the rule-gaming competition rules. ("Sport-ification" of martial arts.) Instead of allowing just any touch to count as a point, only hits with enough body structure to allow damaging force could be allowed.
Many HEMA competitions try to implement this, but expert calibrated judging AIs would make this an order of magnitude better.
I remember watching Olympic diving years ago and the commentator was making a big deal out of the fact that the divers were spreading their knees apart (apparently a flaw) but that the judges weren't picking it up because their viewing angle on the dives didn't allow them to see it. So the divers were taking advantage of a literal blindspot in the human judging to make their dives easier to perform.
So really, changing to AI judging is just going to change what the competitors optimize for in an arbitrary way. It's not going to fundamentally change things.
It will take away most of the fun(?) of arguing a judge's ruling and gaming them, but I will fundamentally always support making games fairer and objective'er.
I hope so. But I suspect a racial bias of some kind will be uncovered.
LOL! I think the assumption that an ML system would be robust across these contexts is not well founded. Things as innocuous as the lighting, background, or placement of athletic tape could easily wreck a model like this.
The thing about human judges is that the modes of failure are pretty well known at this point; and human perception and visual processing is pretty robust to perturbation.
One that many people who would admit the possibility in a human judge will likely insist cannot be present.
Right, professional athletes will go to much greater lengths to exploit a scoring sytem if they can get an edge from it. The AI sensors might be much better than a Wii, but that won't fix the core problem because they will be studied and gamed much more diligently.